Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

NBA Draft Lottery 2017

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

    Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
    Dude is a Pistons fan, he is hoping he is right just like most of us are hoping we are right, he is just being obtuse about it.
    Nah...I'm not going to play "He's a Pistons fan." card with him. It's rather admirable that he can frequent a different team's forum and not discuss Pistons basketball at every and any opportunity.


    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

    Comment


    • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

      Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
      Nah...I'm not going to play "He's a Pistons fan." card with him. It's rather admirable that he can frequent a different team's forum and not discuss Pistons basketball at every and any opportunity.
      Not saying that to disparage him, just saying that we as Pacers fans have a rooting interest in either resigning PG or getting a decent package back for him. He, as a Pistons fan, has a rooting interest in us losing PG for absolutely nothing. That puts a division rival on the mat for at minimum 5 years. He hopes he is right just like we hope we are right. My issue is that he is taking a rumor and running with it as the gospel truth.

      Comment


      • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

        One point I have to believe is at least under consideration by Paul and his advisers is that the only difference between Boston and the Pacers in the playoffs is that Boston got to play in two rounds before getting clobbered by the Cavs, while the Pacers hit the Cavs first round. Who is to say that Boston is somehow one player away from a championship while the Pacers have nothing whatsoever they can do to improve over this year enough to make any kind of leap. About the only way that argument works is to believe that the Cavs went easy on the Pacers - which why we're the only team in the league everyone goes easy on I don't know, but whatever.

        There is definitely an argument about whether the pieces Boston has have more potential than those Indiana has, but I think the result of those pieces is more similar than the final standings may imply. After all, despite the differences we may have about how and why Paul's play was affected, we all pretty much agree that if Paul plays all season like he did the last few weeks we would very much have been in contention for an upper-tier Eastern Conference playoff spot and a lot better record.
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          One point I have to believe is at least under consideration by Paul and his advisers is that the only difference between Boston and the Pacers in the playoffs is that Boston got to play in two rounds before getting clobbered by the Cavs, while the Pacers hit the Cavs first round. Who is to say that Boston is somehow one player away from a championship while the Pacers have nothing whatsoever they can do to improve over this year enough to make any kind of leap. About the only way that argument works is to believe that the Cavs went easy on the Pacers - which why we're the only team in the league everyone goes easy on I don't know, but whatever.

          There is definitely an argument about whether the pieces Boston has have more potential than those Indiana has, but I think the result of those pieces is more similar than the final standings may imply. After all, despite the differences we may have about how and why Paul's play was affected, we all pretty much agree that if Paul plays all season like he did the last few weeks we would very much have been in contention for an upper-tier Eastern Conference playoff spot and a lot better record.
          Boston certainly has more potential than the Pacers. Pacers have Turner. We'll see how this series goes but I hope PG took notice that the Ps gave the Cavs more of a run than the Raps and maybe Celtics. As it stands now, the Pacers are closer to the Cavs than the Celtics. Barring any major changes this off-season, could be the same next year. However, 2 years from now Boston will be much better.

          Celtics adding PG this off season makes them a finals contestant.

          For some sicken feeling, I think DRose and DWade will sign some stupid vet min contracts with the Cavs.

          Comment


          • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            One point I have to believe is at least under consideration by Paul and his advisers is that the only difference between Boston and the Pacers in the playoffs is that Boston got to play in two rounds before getting clobbered by the Cavs, while the Pacers hit the Cavs first round. Who is to say that Boston is somehow one player away from a championship while the Pacers have nothing whatsoever they can do to improve over this year enough to make any kind of leap. About the only way that argument works is to believe that the Cavs went easy on the Pacers - which why we're the only team in the league everyone goes easy on I don't know, but whatever.

            There is definitely an argument about whether the pieces Boston has have more potential than those Indiana has, but I think the result of those pieces is more similar than the final standings may imply. After all, despite the differences we may have about how and why Paul's play was affected, we all pretty much agree that if Paul plays all season like he did the last few weeks we would very much have been in contention for an upper-tier Eastern Conference playoff spot and a lot better record.
            Well, sure, but even if you say the Pacers with George are about equal to Boston without George, Boston with George is a whole lot better than either of those two. And that's really the main difference between those two franchises right now. Boston has more of everything to potentially improve their team: more cap space, more draft assets, and more young, talented players that are getting better. So while both teams could jump to the next level, Boston has a much better chance than the Pacers do of doing that.

            Comment


            • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              One point I have to believe is at least under consideration by Paul and his advisers is that the only difference between Boston and the Pacers in the playoffs is that Boston got to play in two rounds before getting clobbered by the Cavs, while the Pacers hit the Cavs first round. Who is to say that Boston is somehow one player away from a championship while the Pacers have nothing whatsoever they can do to improve over this year enough to make any kind of leap. About the only way that argument works is to believe that the Cavs went easy on the Pacers - which why we're the only team in the league everyone goes easy on I don't know, but whatever.

              There is definitely an argument about whether the pieces Boston has have more potential than those Indiana has, but I think the result of those pieces is more similar than the final standings may imply. After all, despite the differences we may have about how and why Paul's play was affected, we all pretty much agree that if Paul plays all season like he did the last few weeks we would very much have been in contention for an upper-tier Eastern Conference playoff spot and a lot better record.
              It's a fair assessment. Is it REALLY the team, or is it more on Paul George's effort the reason why Indiana wasn't successful this season? If Paul George was the Paul George from the final months of the season and playoffs, then Indiana should have easily gotten more wins than did. It's a tough spot for the Indiana FO.


              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

              Comment


              • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                Well, sure, but even if you say the Pacers with George are about equal to Boston without George, Boston with George is a whole lot better than either of those two. And that's really the main difference between those two franchises right now. Boston has more of everything to potentially improve their team: more cap space, more draft assets, and more young, talented players that are getting better. So while both teams could jump to the next level, Boston has a much better chance than the Pacers do of doing that.
                But is Boston really Boston without IT. So the question becomes, which would have been better, The Pacers with IT on it, or Boston with PG on it? With the rest of the roster being the same

                Comment


                • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

                  Originally posted by jrwannabe View Post
                  But is Boston really Boston without IT. So the question becomes, which would have been better, The Pacers with IT on it, or Boston with PG on it? With the rest of the roster being the same
                  How about the Pacers with Brad Stevens?

                  Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                  • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

                    Originally posted by jrwannabe View Post

                    For some sicken feeling, I think DRose and DWade will sign some stupid vet min contracts with the Cavs.
                    How much money would DWade give up to do that, 24 million? That is highly unlikely.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment


                    • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

                      Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                      Well, sure, but even if you say the Pacers with George are about equal to Boston without George, Boston with George is a whole lot better than either of those two. And that's really the main difference between those two franchises right now. Boston has more of everything to potentially improve their team: more cap space, more draft assets, and more young, talented players that are getting better. So while both teams could jump to the next level, Boston has a much better chance than the Pacers do of doing that.
                      Unless you are saying it is impossible for the Pacers to pair a player with the impact of IT with Paul, then this is just another way of saying Boston needs Paul as a piece but the Pacers only need a player who is not Paul as a piece. Both teams can improve - one requires Paul while the other is adding TO Paul.

                      It's why I am thinking that we have got to let KP see what he can bring in alongside Paul before deciding it's time to tear down and rebuild for 3-5 years. I am influenced - as I have explained before - that I really don't by into this whole "we lost him for nothing!" angst because I don't believe that there is a no-brainer "something" to get. If Paul leaves, we get the choice of how to go about rebuilding with a crapload of cap space to get not just our own upper draft pick through being bad but also to take on those contracts that net us other teams' good picks as well (as some are arguing now). I am not so impatient as to think we need to start this a year early no matter what is on the table for Paul. The upside of KP putting something together that gives us a major improvement - which should lead us to being able to convince Paul to stay just as easily as Boston would be able to - is worth the wait for me.
                      BillS

                      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                      Comment


                      • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

                        Originally posted by PaulGeorgeHill View Post
                        How about the Pacers with Brad Stevens?

                        Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
                        Total dream. Plus that'd give the Pacer's the upperhand for Hayward

                        Comment


                        • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

                          https://twitter.com/yg_trece/status/865231304526184448

                          Welp...


                          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                          "I think the people that may have questions about him will say wait a minute, why wasn't he more dominant at Fresno State? He's a maturing player, a guy that's figuring it out and you know when you're considering drafting guys that have been freshman and all that stuff. He's got the potential to get better and better and better." - Jay Bilas on PG on draft night.

                          Comment


                          • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            Unless you are saying it is impossible for the Pacers to pair a player with the impact of IT with Paul, then this is just another way of saying Boston needs Paul as a piece but the Pacers only need a player who is not Paul as a piece. Both teams can improve - one requires Paul while the other is adding TO Paul.

                            It's why I am thinking that we have got to let KP see what he can bring in alongside Paul before deciding it's time to tear down and rebuild for 3-5 years. I am influenced - as I have explained before - that I really don't by into this whole "we lost him for nothing!" angst because I don't believe that there is a no-brainer "something" to get. If Paul leaves, we get the choice of how to go about rebuilding with a crapload of cap space to get not just our own upper draft pick through being bad but also to take on those contracts that net us other teams' good picks as well (as some are arguing now). I am not so impatient as to think we need to start this a year early no matter what is on the table for Paul. The upside of KP putting something together that gives us a major improvement - which should lead us to being able to convince Paul to stay just as easily as Boston would be able to - is worth the wait for me.
                            Both teams can improve, but the Pacers path to significant improvement is much, much harder. They basically have to outscout the league and find a highly undervalued player to make that leap. Those players do exist and that does happen, but it's fairly rare. Boston can pay fair market value on either the free agent market or a trade to make their team significantly better.

                            Whether the Pacers should trade PG knowing that is a different question. The Pacers may want to make that gamble knowing that Boston likely won't have max money in free agency next year and just hoping that PG chooses them over the Lakers. But to say that PG's camp should see that the Pacers and the Celtics are equally close to contention is just not right IMO. Boston has several roads to get there, while the Pacers road is very limited.

                            Comment


                            • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

                              Originally posted by PaceKid31 View Post
                              https://twitter.com/yg_trece/status/865231304526184448

                              Welp...


                              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                              Not there. What did it say that will blow up the speculation this time?
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • Re: NBA Draft Lottery 2017

                                Originally posted by PaceKid31 View Post
                                https://twitter.com/yg_trece/status/865231304526184448

                                Welp...


                                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                                Tweet got deleted.


                                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                                "I think the people that may have questions about him will say wait a minute, why wasn't he more dominant at Fresno State? He's a maturing player, a guy that's figuring it out and you know when you're considering drafting guys that have been freshman and all that stuff. He's got the potential to get better and better and better." - Jay Bilas on PG on draft night.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X